bob wrote:If the owners of ICD want to dictate what is allowable and what is not, that represents a huge problem because it is an obvious conflict of interest. Steve _never_ made any such attempts.

There are flaws in your assumptions. The only thing "dictated" by ICD has been the prohibition of links to illegal or questionable software and sites that promote acquisition of it. This has been standard policy since the days when Steve owned the shop. The recent guidance did no more than reaffirm that stance and ask for more aggressive enforcement of it.

-Sam-

Point 1 (of 1): Have you seen _any_ proof that Ippo* is an illegal copy of anything? I have not. Clearly there are copies of Ippo* running amok, but ippo* is an open-source program.

So, what is the point of moving _all_ discussions about the Ippo* family to a non-public forum, when there is no proof of any kind that the program is illegal? Vas offered proof for the Strelka case when that first broke. And it was treated as a clear clone, end of story. We have _nothing_ to support any such claim for Ippo*, yet Graham has been on a one-man crusade since he became a mod, moving posts with any reference to Ippo*, Robo*, etc into the non-public forum, almost instantly. Then you apparently gave him a statement that was a bit ambiguous, and which he would _obviously_ take as justification for going on an even larger "hide 'em" crusade.

If ICD chess is going to try to limit, in any way, what is discussed here, it is a conflict of interest that is completely unacceptable. In the past, when Steve was the owner, there _were_ links posted to clones. Le Petite. Voyager. Bionic Impakt. Etc. And we outed them and they disappeared naturally, without any need to bury references in a non-public place. That has obviously changed. For the worse, I might add.

Removing links is stupid. It doesn't change a thing. Links to Ippo* and such are all over the internet. The right idea is to expose things that are wrong, not hide them. Seems to be a lost point here, however... Particularly when we don't even _know_ if anything is wrong with Ippo* and family or not...

bob wrote:If the owners of ICD want to dictate what is allowable and what is not, that represents a huge problem because it is an obvious conflict of interest. Steve _never_ made any such attempts.

There are flaws in your assumptions. The only thing "dictated" by ICD has been the prohibition of links to illegal or questionable software and sites that promote acquisition of it. This has been standard policy since the days when Steve owned the shop. The recent guidance did no more than reaffirm that stance and ask for more aggressive enforcement of it.

-Sam-

Vas offered proof for the Strelka case when that first broke. And it was treated as a clear clone, end of story.

In a manner of speaking. He certainly never offered to show his code around to anyone as you demand. Instead the author of the clone came clean and admitted to what he had done. His posts here say that he regrets what he did, for what it's worth.

"Tactics are the bricks and sticks that make up a game, but positional play is the architectural blueprint."

What could be taken out of the whole clone debates in the past for the better of computerchess programming???

And this, how could you remain so tolerant, if you didnt support the invisible vilains, if you have never met them nor talked to them? Isnt this already enough to be judged as an impossible and totally wrong approach. And again why didnt you condemn them and their stuff? Isnt it allowed to conclude that you tolerated this because it caused problems for Vas?? Couldnt you confirm that just for me? Shouldnt we get out of this mess in favor of the future of computerchess?

I do not follow your first question. I see no "villains" at present, because there is no proof that anyone is a villain. I've proven every clone statement I have made in the past, by offering tons of data to show where a program is identical to my code. We can't seem to get any of that "data" for the Ippo* case, hence there is nothing to deal with at the present, until some data is provided. All we have now is simple anecdotal evidence such as "XYZ says this is reverse-engineered from something" or "ABC says this table is _almost_ identical in both programs" and so forth. That's not evidence, that is hearsay. Perhaps one day real evidence will be presented, one way or the other, and we can move past this kind of vitriolic discussion.

Personally, I am busy enough and have enough to do working on my program and am not willing to waste time trying to resolve the issue. not my job, as the saying goes.

Your logic about "not meeting them" fails. I've never met Vas either. Nor most of the other "new group" of programmers. There is far more copying going on that most realize. This is sort of the tip of the iceberg, actually. There are cheaters in _every_ sport. And it is nearly impossible to catch them all. Same here.

bob wrote:I'll say this again, "Bob doesn't support the Ippo* development". I do not know what the thing is, nor where it came from.

It comes from a neverending stream of posts of yours that contain statements such as:

"I am completely unconcerned about the reverse-engineering that has been done. Seems like a fair way to "even the playing field" by forcing a secretive author to expose secrets he has desparately tried to hide by obfuscation of this PV, depth and node counter displays. I'm not going to lose any sleep over this at all. It isn't my concern..."

And that has exactly what to do with my _SUPPORTING_ Ippo*?

Your vision on this issue is remarkably cloudy.

Here's a suggestion. If you have something to say, say it _clearly_. One-liners offer little content to further the discussion.

I'll clarify my statement, since you obviously have no context.

Vas clearly copied fruit to create Rybka 1. Absolutely no doubt. And yet he has repeatedly said he copied _no_ code whatsoever, just ideas. That's false. And now he claims that someone copied his work (ippo*) but offered _nothing_ to prove this claim except for the fact that the new program was at least as strong as his and could hardly just appear out of the blue (of course, this would be a description of Rybka 1 as well).

So no, I'm not particularly sympathetic to his case. If he offers proof that Ippo* is reverse-engineered from his program, I'd certainly accept it. But so far, he has offered _nothing_. My vision is not "cloudy". I have had 20-10 vision since I was born (distance, at least). And I tend to see that which is _actually_ there, not the ghosts, shadows, and such that others imagine. When there is something _real_ to see, I'll see it. So far there is nothing but one voice in the darkness saying "this is a copy" and then nothing more. Not convincing to one that has good eyes.

bob wrote:I'll say this again, "Bob doesn't support the Ippo* development". I do not know what the thing is, nor where it came from.

It comes from a neverending stream of posts of yours that contain statements such as:

"I am completely unconcerned about the reverse-engineering that has been done. Seems like a fair way to "even the playing field" by forcing a secretive author to expose secrets he has desparately tried to hide by obfuscation of this PV, depth and node counter displays. I'm not going to lose any sleep over this at all. It isn't my concern..."

And that has exactly what to do with my _SUPPORTING_ Ippo*?

Your vision on this issue is remarkably cloudy.

Here's a suggestion. If you have something to say, say it _clearly_. One-liners offer little content to further the discussion.

I'll clarify my statement, since you obviously have no context.

Vas clearly copied fruit to create Rybka 1. Absolutely no doubt. And yet he has repeatedly said he copied _no_ code whatsoever, just ideas. That's false. And now he claims that someone copied his work (ippo*) but offered _nothing_ to prove this claim except for the fact that the new program was at least as strong as his and could hardly just appear out of the blue (of course, this would be a description of Rybka 1 as well).

So no, I'm not particularly sympathetic to his case. If he offers proof that Ippo* is reverse-engineered from his program, I'd certainly accept it. But so far, he has offered _nothing_. My vision is not "cloudy". I have had 20-10 vision since I was born (distance, at least). And I tend to see that which is _actually_ there, not the ghosts, shadows, and such that others imagine. When there is something _real_ to see, I'll see it. So far there is nothing but one voice in the darkness saying "this is a copy" and then nothing more. Not convincing to one that has good eyes.

Are you sure you aren't cloudy? (there I go with the one liners again..)

I had no contact with either ICD or Quentin. Quentin hasn't even responded to my email asking for further clarification as to what he exactly expected.
I wasn't one of the many from both sides who bombarded them with email complaints either.

You can accuse me all you like of power tripping, but my interest in moderating has always been to keep CCC a place where discussion is kept respectful.

My silent protest (posting only, not moderating) was over the allowing of links to the questionable engines in the general subforum by my fellow mods. I felt that they had broken an agreement that had been reached by doing so.
When the directive came from above to no longer allow those links, I no longer had the need to be a non-poster.

Sam Hull wrote:
(a) Sorry for weighing in late. Our downtown Dallas office building has lost power and shut down my entire network two business days in a row, and I couldn't get back to the board after posting the guidance from Quentin for the CCC mods until now.

(b) There has been a rather large misunderstanding, and Jeremy has slightly misquoted what I passed along from ICD/Your Move. The guidance is simply to not tolerate anything that looks like a LINK to illegitimate software in CCC. No one said anything about censoring discussions or removing posts that simply make allusions or offer evaluations. Graham misunderstood the intent of the guidance - I have clarified it in detail for him this evening via IM. Where the issue of clones is concerned, and for the board in general, the goal of fair and balanced moderation has not changed, and there is no desire for favoritism in ANY direction.

(c) I hope Jeremy will reconsider his decision. I have not had a chance to converse with him directly and have received no PMs from him. I posted responses in the moderator forum as soon as I regained internet access, but I am still locked out of e-mail and will be until tomorrow morning. I think Jeremy has been an outstanding moderator and I fully support his philosophy of moderation - always have.

(d) I don't set moderation policy. I passed along a request to the CCC mods that I received from Quentin, which came as the result of certain members haranguing ICD about real, suspected, and imagined clones. Graham misunderstood the message, performed some moderation on that basis, and Jeremy decided to post a grand exit without waiting to get any clarification about the guidance.

(e) Personally I am surprised that two CCC mods who share an opinion cannot simply outvote and override one mod on those occasions when he has a different view. I got regularly overridden for two whole terms in CTF. I haven't complained, and nobody died. It's a discussion board, folks.

(f) If a member runs for moderator and is elected, I think it is fair to expect him to honor his commitment and serve out the term.

bob wrote:I'll say this again, "Bob doesn't support the Ippo* development". I do not know what the thing is, nor where it came from.

It comes from a neverending stream of posts of yours that contain statements such as:

"I am completely unconcerned about the reverse-engineering that has been done. Seems like a fair way to "even the playing field" by forcing a secretive author to expose secrets he has desparately tried to hide by obfuscation of this PV, depth and node counter displays. I'm not going to lose any sleep over this at all. It isn't my concern..."

And that has exactly what to do with my _SUPPORTING_ Ippo*?

Your vision on this issue is remarkably cloudy.

Here's a suggestion. If you have something to say, say it _clearly_. One-liners offer little content to further the discussion.

I'll clarify my statement, since you obviously have no context.

Vas clearly copied fruit to create Rybka 1. Absolutely no doubt. And yet he has repeatedly said he copied _no_ code whatsoever, just ideas. That's false. And now he claims that someone copied his work (ippo*) but offered _nothing_ to prove this claim except for the fact that the new program was at least as strong as his and could hardly just appear out of the blue (of course, this would be a description of Rybka 1 as well).

So no, I'm not particularly sympathetic to his case. If he offers proof that Ippo* is reverse-engineered from his program, I'd certainly accept it. But so far, he has offered _nothing_. My vision is not "cloudy". I have had 20-10 vision since I was born (distance, at least). And I tend to see that which is _actually_ there, not the ghosts, shadows, and such that others imagine. When there is something _real_ to see, I'll see it. So far there is nothing but one voice in the darkness saying "this is a copy" and then nothing more. Not convincing to one that has good eyes.

Are you sure you aren't cloudy? (there I go with the one liners again..)

I am positive. I can see clearly, for miles and miles. Although for the issue at hand, anyone should be able to see clearly enough to understand.